G.R. No. 176350 ; August 10, 2011
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Jhon-Jhon Alejandro y Dela Cruz @ “Nognog,” Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Jhon-Jhon Alejandro, was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the unlawful sale and delivery of 0.06 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) on September 1, 2002, in Pasay City. He pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the defense stipulated on the existence of certain documentary evidence, including the Booking and Information Sheet (Exhibit “C”), Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit “D”), and Physical Science Report No. D-1331-02 (Exhibit “E”), and agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, P/Insp. Lourdeliza M. Gural.
The prosecution evidence established that a buy-bust operation was conducted after a confidential informant reported the appellant’s illegal drug activities. PO1 Timothy Mengote acted as the poseur-buyer. At the scene, the informant introduced PO1 Mengote to the appellant as a buyer. After a brief conversation where PO1 Mengote handed over marked money, the appellant handed him a plastic sachet. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the buy-bust team arrested the appellant and recovered the marked money. The seized item was forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where examination confirmed it contained Methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The appellant presented a different version, claiming he was arbitrarily arrested when police officers, who were looking for a certain “Terio,” brought him from Pasay City to Makati and back, then forced him to admit ownership of plastic sachets at the police station. A defense witness, Reggie Morilla, corroborated seeing the appellant being handcuffed by policemen in civilian attire.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. The appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, specifically questioning the integrity of the seized item due to alleged failure to mark it.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the appellant’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , despite the alleged failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the appellant’s conviction. The Court held that all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties regularly in the absence of proof of improper motive, were credible and established the buy-bust operation. The defense of denial, being unsupported by strong evidence, could not prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
Crucially, the Court ruled that the appellant was estopped from questioning the identity and integrity of the seized drug. During the pre-trial, the appellant, through counsel, stipulated on the existence and admissibility of the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Physical Science Report confirming the substance was shabu. By this judicial admission, he waived any objection to the evidence’s authenticity and the chain of custody. The defense’s agreement to dispense with the forensic chemist’s testimony further precluded any challenge to the laboratory findings on appeal. The failure to immediately mark the seized item at the scene, raised by the appellant, did not automatically compromise its integrity, as the chain of custody remained unbroken and the evidence’s identity was preserved. The conviction was therefore upheld.